| 1 |
All of these things are true. The drives should be binned and yes /var |
| 2 |
/tmp and swap are particularly bad uses for slow drives. I also think it |
| 3 |
doesn't matter much on a 100MHz Pentium and that it's easier to recover |
| 4 |
from loosing /tmp and swap than to loose say, /home or /usr. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is obviously not a "serious production server"!? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That said, maybe this isn't the right list to discuss non-production |
| 9 |
uses for ancient hardware? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 18:11, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: |
| 14 |
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 03:05:38 +1030 |
| 15 |
> stephen white <steve@×××××××××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:19 AM, Michael Diederich wrote: |
| 18 |
> > > Thanks for all your replies - /tmp is a very good idea ;-) |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Nobody else said it, so I will... your Linux system can also be |
| 21 |
> > improved by what you don't add, so I would recommend binning the |
| 22 |
> > drives. It's not worth the effort of trying, and it's a false |
| 23 |
> > economy to use them. On /tmp, the machine will die if the drive |
| 24 |
> > fails. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > As this is the server mailing list, I'll also point out that adding |
| 27 |
> > odd bits and pieces of hardware to your machines makes groups of |
| 28 |
> > servers more difficult to manage. You should be working towards |
| 29 |
> > standardised machines to minimise the number of hardware profiles |
| 30 |
> > you need to maintain. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> And.. surely swap, /tmp and /var are a BAD places for old *slow* HDs. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> http://www.nyx.net/~sgjoen/disk.html |
| 35 |
> |
Archives